I should also like to point out, for what value it may be, the importance of the Libby Dam project, on the Kootenai River, in Montana. This is also a project that will go far to alleviate the acute power shortage and for this reason seems to me should have priority consideration. Finally, I should like to point out that I do not believe that the question of a Columbia Valley Authority should affect your consideration of these projects one way or another. The construction of this multiple-purpose dams must go forward. Work on them should not be stopped simply because there is before the Congress a proposal to set up a Columbia Valley Authority. Thanking you for your consideration, and with kind personal regards, I am, Yours very truly, BERT H. MILLER, Senator from Idaho. FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORIZATIONS, 1949 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 9:30 a. m., Hon. William M. Whittington, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We have with us this morning representatives of the Department of Agriculture. Under the act of 1936 and the subsequent acts, watershed investigations, covering water conservation, soil erosion, reforestation, and forestations by the Department of Agriculture in connection with watersheds on projects on which flood-control works were authorized in States consisting of watersheds. From time to time we have had statements from the Department as to the progress of the work, and we have increased the authorization for investigations from time to time. In 1948 there were included in the Flood Control Act watershed authorizations in 11 basins. We have before us this morning, and in accordance with the customs and hearings on flood control, representatives from the Department of Agriculture, and those representatives are here to make reports. Reports are to be made by Mr. Ralph R. Will, Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture; Mr. J. C. Dykes, of the Soil Conservation Service, Mr. Gordon Salmond of the Forest Service, and also by Mr. George R. Phillips, of the Office of the Secretary. The first witness will be Mr. Ralph E. Will, Administrative Officer, Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. We will be delighted to have your statement, Mr. Will. STATEMENT OF RALPH R. WILL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE Mr. WILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We regret very much that the Secretary himself was not able to come but we are glad to have your statement. Before you make your general statement I want to ask you a question or two for the information of the committee. Mr. WILL. Very well. The CHAIRMAN. First with reference to the list of projects authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. You have been continuing your investigations since that time, and I will ask you to state for the information of the committee if you have submitted any new projects. 92329-49-68 1059 or transmitted any new projects since that time, and will you report the progress on them. Mr. WILL. No, Mr. Chairman, we have not transmitted any reports to Congress since the 11 were authorized. The CHAIRMAN. So that we have no reports before us. We have heard a lot about the Missouri River Basin project, and from the public press we have observed that the Secretary has transmitted, or has given publicity to that report. Will you tell us where it is? Mr. WILL. Mr. Chairman, it is now in the Bureau of the Budget waiting clearance, and we are in touch with the Bureau of the Budget and have assurance that it will be cleared in the very near future. We had hoped that it would be through and come before this committee by now, but it will not be long, I am confident. The CHAIRMAN. I might say that I also have just been handed a copy of this report a few moments ago and I understand that the Secretary, in accordance with the request of the Committee on Appropriations, has made a copy of that report available to the Appropriations Committee. Is that correct? Mr. WILL. More precisely, Mr. Chairman, to the delegation in Congress, the Members from the 10 Missouri River Basin States, the Senators and the Congressmen. The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be a good idea, if I might be permitted to make the suggestion, as long as the report has been referred to. that members of the committee be furnished a copy on the report. Mr. WILL. We will be glad to do that. The CHAIRMAN. There are 27 members of the committee, and I might suggest that you make a copy available to us. Mr. WILL. We will be delighted to do that. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be glad to have a statement from you. Mr. WILL. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement and with your permission I will read it, although I can file it and talk informally if you desire. The CHAIRMAN. If I were going to make a suggestion to you, Mr. Will, I would suggest that you file the statement and just cover the high lights. (The statement was filed with the reporter but is not included in this report. A copy is attached hereto.) Mr. WILL. Very well. The CHAIRMAN. Although if you want to read any part of it, it is all right. Mr. WILL. Mr. Chairman, it will only take me a few moments to cover the general presentation that I am going to make. The Department of Agriculture, as you know, follows the same general procedure used by the Army in conducting its flood-control work on watersheds. That is, authorizations are secured for preliminary examinations and surveys, which are subsequently followed by reports to the Congress, and then projects are authorized for works or improvements and the work then prosecuted under annual appropriations. In other words, it is the type of work which is geared to a particular watershed in a particular locality and the work is reviewed before the Congress constantly, at least annually as appropriations are sought. Now the Secretary has during the past few years, or in about the last 3 years, delegated to the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service primary responsibility for making the preliminary examinations and the surveys, and also for conducting the actual installations under the works of improvement. There has been general geographic delineation between the survey work of the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service generally being responsible for such work in the forest areas, and the Soil Conservation in the rest of the country. It is necessary, under the terms of the 1936 act, to relate the floodcontrol work; that is, to relate the work that is done under the Flood Control Act on the watersheds to the other conservation work of the Department. That is particularly true because all of the Flood Control Acts provide that the work done thereunder, authorized thereunder, shall be supplementary to regular similar work under the conservation programs. So in order to get the best kind of a working program it is necessary to take into account the conservation work being done under the regular conservation programs, and provide in addition thereto whatever is necessary in order to achieve a wellrounded and complete watershed-protection program in any given watershed. So with that idea in mind we do endeavor to coordinate the proposals under flood control, particularly the land treatment and conservation work with the other conservation work in the Department. During the war, of course, our funds were impounded and work was shut down. Beginning about 22 or 3 years ago the work was revived and since that time installations have proceeded on the 11 authorized watersheds and there have been also a large number of surveys under way, amounting to a large amount of work on many watersheds throughout the country. That work has not yet manifested itself in reports coming to the Congress, as your chairman pointed out, but there are a lot of surveys under way and moving toward the final stage of completion, and before long reports will be flowing to the Congress. The first one, as we have pointed out will probably be the Missouri Basin Report, and that covers approximately one-sixth of the land area of the country, a considerable part of the total area of the United States, involving a very ambitious long-range program, which we think has been very well worked out. We believe it is a good program and we commend it to the committee's earnest attention when it is formally transmitted to the Congress. Now, in addition to the Missouri program report in the office of the Secretary are the following survey reports: The Pee Dee in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; the Sny in Illinois; the Queen Creek in Arizona; the Neosho Grand in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas; the Little River in Texas, a tributary of the Brazos. We have also just received in the office of the Secretary a survey report on the Mojave. The CHAIRMAN. On what? Mr. WILL. The Mojave. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that? Mr. WILL. That is in California. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to be sure that the record was clear. Now, let me say in order that the committee may have the picture, that there have been authorized for examination and surveys, $30,000, 000 by the Department of Agriculture, for which Department you are speaking; $5,000,000 in the act of 1936, and $5,000,000 in each of the acts of 1938, 1941, 1944, 1946, and 1948. Is that correct? Mr. WILL. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. How much has actually been appropriated for those examinations and surveys, up to and including the current year 1949? Mr. WILL. I have the figures right before me, including the year 1950, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. What is it for the fiscal year 1950-that has not been appropriated; it is still pending. Mr. WILL. Accumulative through 1950 is $14,674,842. The CHAIRMAN. What is included for the fiscal year 1950? Mr. WILL. Roughly $2,250,000. The CHAIRMAN. $2,250,000? Mr. WILL. That is the Budget request. The CHAIRMAN. So that these approximately $14,400,000 that have been appropriated out of $30,000,000 authorized up to and including the year 1949? Mr. WILL. It will leave about $12,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. I mean $12,000,000. Mr. WILL. Yes, $12,200,000. The CHAIRMAN. So there remains available for appropriation approximately $17,750,000? Mr. WILL. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Now in the act of 1944 the project at Los Angeles was authorized at an estimated cost of $8,000,000, and there has been appropriated up to and including the fiscal year 1949-I want to be sure that includes 1949 and not 1950-there has been appropriated for the project at the estimated cost of $8,383,000, including the fiscal year kk1949, $3,200,000? Mr. WILL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And if I am incorrect in any of these statements, since I am just trying to get the facts before the committee in the shortest time practical, I want you to correct me. For the Santa Ynez watershed in California, at an estimated cost of $434,000, there has been appropriated up to and including the fiscal year 1949, $154,000. For the Trinity watershed in Texas, at an estimated cost of $32,000,the project at the estimated cost of $8,380,000, including the fiscal year 1949, $3,200,000? For the Little Tallahatchie River watershed in Mississippi and southern Tennessee, at an estimated cost of $4,221,000, there has been appropriated $364,000, plus. For the Yazoo watershed, at an authorized cost of $21,700,000, there has been appropriated $518,000. For the Coosa River watershed in Georgia, at an estimated cost of $1,233,000, there has been appropriated $151,000. The Little Sioux watershed that is generally in Iowa, I understand, at an estimated cost of $4,280,000, there has been appropriated $233,900. Mr. WILL. That figure should be $2,339,000. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I beg your pardon. For the Potomac River watershed, at an estimated cost of $859,000, there has been appropriated $204,000. |